D&D 4e vs. Pathfinder

[WNxTyr4el]

I'm completely new to the subject of tabletop RPGs. I just moved to the FL area and got started in D&D 4e. I bought the Red Box (beginner box) and have had a hard time finding anyone that wants to play D&D 4e. I've heard of Pathfinder and it seems to be a little more popular. I was wondering if anyone could explain to me the differences between the 2 and what the lure is of PF rather than D&D 4e?

Is the game growing quickly or has it been growing quickly (don't know the history of the game)? Is it more combat oriented or roleplaying oriented or can it be both? Those types of general questions I'd love answered. As well as a more detailed response as to the key differences if possible.

Thanks!

[LazarX]

Just basically accept that they are two different games with some common ancestry and leave it at that. Pathfinder is basically a modified 3.5.

Both games are combat oriented, but quite frankly the story is up to the players and the GM. Most of what Kolok says here is pretty much on the money. Long and short of it is is that if you have a history with 3.X, somethings will trip you in Pathfinder, but much of it you will find yourself at home with.

[Adamantine Dragon]

It is also worth noting that this forum is run by Paizo, which is a direct competitor of Wizards of the Coast. Paizo has a policy that they will not allow threads to become "edition wars" where Pathfinder and 4e are argued. Just the title of this thread may well get this thread shut down.

At a high level the difference between the two is that 4e was a major break and redesign of the game from the ground up, while Pathfinder was a continuation of the evolution of the existing game system, which was known as D&D 3.5.

There are probably dozens of sites on the web that you can find with a google search directly comparing the two systems.

[Kolokotroni]

First off, welcome to gaming. Just a warning, 4E vs pathfinder (or its predecessor 3.5) is an extremely touchy subject. Obviously on this board you are going to get more pro pathfinder views, but its still hostile at times. I apologize in advance for anyone who might respond thusly.

Now, to your questions:

1. Growth of pathfinder:
Pathfinder has literally exploded in popularity in the last years. It is in fact the most popular roleplaying game, and for the moment by a large margin (dnd next may cut into that next year). The reason you dont see alot of 4E players is likely because wizards of the coaster (creater of dnd) has more or less abandoned it, in favor of their next version currently in development.

2. Combat vs roleplay - It is a combat heavy system, but it can just as easily be very roleplay oriented. D20 as a whole and thus pathfinder is really what you make of it. There are people who focuse deeply on roleplay and there are those that treat it as a tactical skirmish game (most are somewhere in between). But you can do just about anything on that scale with it if you and your group want to.

3. 4E vs Pathifnder:
4E set out to fix a number of ploblems with 3rd edition dnd. It was first and foremost designed to be a good game that works well. And in that sense it succeeded. Particularly after a few years of material, 4E is a very solid game, with a focus on balance and small scale tactics. It did however do this at the expense of some traditional things in DnD. Abilities that were often disperate and functioned in a variety of ways were boiled down into 'powers' that operated on a similar set of mechanics.

Pathfinder, sticks with its 3.5 roots and its as much a worldbuilding tool as it is a game. What I mean by this is pathfinder's rules are designed to make you 'feel' the characters and the world. If a certain kind of character or monster should conceptually be able to do something, they can in the game. This is done at the expense of game balance in some cases. For instance, the monk, is designed to be a high flying kung fu hero. His mechanics support that. But the variety of abilities and the diverse focus limit its overall effectiveness in a lot of situations.

Things in pathfinder are far less clearly defined. Things like tank, striker, controller are not hard and fact 'roles' in pathfinder, where as in 4E they were the basis for class design. For some (myself included) that makes for a more interesting game. But like I said, balance suffers for the more varied structure of the classes.

4 Lure of Pathfinder:
Paizo's adventures. More then anything else, the reason I play pathfinder is that paizo puts out lots of great adventures. If you like published material then pathfinder by far gives you the most and best options then any other rpg on the market. It is in fact their focus, telling good stories, and giving you the tools to do so also. Thats the lure for me, and the reason my group is playing pathfinder.

[Fromper]

I grew up playing 1st edition D&D/AD&D in the 80's, took a 20 year break from RPGs, then returned 2 years ago, and had similar questions. Like you, I started with the new D&D red box basic set. I was also in Florida like you.

When I started looking for groups to play with in the area, I found that Pathfinder was more popular, so that's what I ended up sticking with. Now that I've played both and understand the differences, I understand and agree with the Pathfinder preference.

But really, for a newbie who doesn't know the difference, I'd say that's the method you should be using to pick a version. Since this is a social game, and you'll need people to play with, your best bet is to go look for a playing group, and stick to whatever they're playing. Meetup.com is a great way to find gamers to play with, and both this site and Wizards of the Coast have areas where people can advertise for gamers in their local area to form groups.

I will say that since "D&D Next" (aka 5th edition) is in playtest already, it's probably not worth spending too much money on 4e stuff, since it'll probably stop getting played much once 5e is released.

Also, what part of Florida are you in? I'm no longer down there, but I might be able to point you to some Pathfinder players in your part of the state who can help you get started.

[Greylurker]

The developers of 4E went to a lot of trouble to alienate and offend a large portion of the people they expected to buy their new game. There were several things they quite literally told people "we're not allowing it because we think it's stupid"

It was also too great a departure from the system people were used to and a lot of traditional elements were thrown out for what was seen as "the new cool"

It's not a bad game over all but the people behind it were pretty much jerks to their player base. They often seemed to go out of their way to drive off the existing player base confident they would get a "new and better" one.

By the time they got around to fixing their attitude and marketing problems it was too late.
Paizo had taken the old system that people liked, improved on it, added more flexibility, treated the fan base with a bit of respect. They also focused on smaller cheaper books like adventures, player companions, the Paths, etc... where WOTC seemed intent of hitting people up for 1 to 3 Hardcover books a month.

[Fromper]

Greylurker, don't hold back like that. Tell us how you really feel. :p

[WNxTyr4el]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

It is also worth noting that this forum is run by Paizo, which is a direct competitor of Wizards of the Coast. Paizo has a policy that they will not allow threads to become "edition wars" where Pathfinder and 4e are argued. Just the title of this thread may well get this thread shut down.

At a high level the difference between the two is that 4e was a major break and redesign of the game from the ground up, while Pathfinder was a continuation of the evolution of the existing game system, which was known as D&D 3.5.

There are probably dozens of sites on the web that you can find with a google search directly comparing the two systems.

I don't want to create an edition war. I'm a blank book when it comes to the subject of roleplaying tabletop games. I just wanted to know the differences and similarities from players themselves and what the lure of both games is to them (in their opinion). I don't want this thread shut down I just want to hear opinions and I understand that this is a PF forum so obviously it may be biased but you never know what you may get :D. Thanks for all the responses! I may invest in the beginner box quite soon. I definitely need somewhere where I can read on the classes though. They seem to be completely different and not as many of them, so I'd like to see how the whole class system works if anyone has a link for that :D

EDIT: @Fromper: I'm in the Tampa/Land O' Lakes area :D. I think I'll be going to Pathfinder quite soon. I've found on Meetup.com that a lot of people are playing PF in my area. I'm in a group on there for my area :D.

[Matt Thomason]

Kolokotroni wrote:

2. Combat vs roleplay - It is a combat heavy system, but it can just as easily be very roleplay oriented. D20 as a whole and thus pathfinder is really what you make of it. There are people who focuse deeply on roleplay and there are those that treat it as a tactical skirmish game (most are somewhere in between). But you can do just about anything on that scale with it if you and your group want to.

What I'd add here is that both systems are probably fairly close in their RP support. The major difference is that 4e adventures were written in an encounter format that placed an emphasis on combat and action, while Pathfinder adventures tend to provide far more on the story, narrative, and RP side of things (plus far more pointers on how to handle things if the game goes "off the rails")

If you're more a combat and action person you can still find that in Pathfinder as there's a good mix of adventures available by Paizo and 3PPs covering pretty much every preference, and the Paizo Adventure Paths especially can be played either way - you can run the combats and gloss over the RP (personally I think that would be a shame but it's your preference that matters in your game, not mine!), or you can use the reams of background information in them to emphasize it - or whichever balance of RP and combat you want. It's all in the GM's hands.

[Matt Thomason]

WNxTyr4el wrote:

I'd like to see how the whole class system works if anyone has a link for that :D

You probably should take a look at the Pathfinder Reference Document here :)

It's basically all of the main rules for free, courtesy of Paizo, but you can also get PDFs of the core books for $9.99 via this very site if you'd like a nicely formatted version (or of course actual printed books!) - plus it's kinda nice to let them have some money for writing the things, of course :D

[WNxTyr4el]

Matt Thomason wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

2. Combat vs roleplay - It is a combat heavy system, but it can just as easily be very roleplay oriented. D20 as a whole and thus pathfinder is really what you make of it. There are people who focuse deeply on roleplay and there are those that treat it as a tactical skirmish game (most are somewhere in between). But you can do just about anything on that scale with it if you and your group want to.

What I'd add here is that both systems are probably fairly close in their RP support. The major difference is that 4e adventures were written in an encounter format that placed an emphasis on combat and action, while Pathfinder adventures tend to provide far more on the story, narrative, and RP side of things (plus far more pointers on how to handle things if the game goes "off the rails")

If you're more a combat and action person you can still find that in Pathfinder as there's a good mix of adventures available by Paizo and 3PPs covering pretty much every preference, and the Paizo Adventure Paths especially can be played either way - you can run the combats and gloss over the RP (personally I think that would be a shame but it's your preference that matters in your game, not mine!), or you can use the reams of background information in them to emphasize it - or whichever balance of RP and combat you want. It's all in the GM's hands.

From Google searches, that's what I've found out; that Pathfinder is a lot more focused around story and narrative. I don't mind that though. I'm new to roleplaying so getting into character is weird/embarrassing but I'll grow into it I'm sure! I like that Paizo supports their product vehemently so thats a + for them.

[LazarX]

Greylurker wrote:

The developers of 4E went to a lot of trouble to alienate and offend a large portion of the people they expected to buy their new game. There were several things they quite literally told people "we're not allowing it because we think it's stupid"

Let's just give him the facts without editorialisng or footnotes, nor our interpretations of what we think WOTC intended in their actions. It's generally hyperbole to go around saying that a company did something for no other reason than to piss in gamer's cheerios.

And remember edition wars are against messageboard policies.

[Marc Radle]

WNxTyr4el wrote:

EDIT: @Fromper: I'm in the Tampa/Land O' Lakes area :D. I think I'll be going to Pathfinder quite soon. I've found on Meetup.com that a lot of people are playing PF in my area. I'm in a group on there for my area :D.

There is also a Gamers looking for Gamers forum here on Paizo.com (scroll down toward the bottom) where you could post looking for other Tampa/Land O' Lakes area Pathfinder players :)

[Bill Dunn]

The lure of Pathfinder? There are three fundamental things I find particularly attractive about Pathfinder compared to 4e:

1) Gameplay - PF is a modestly revised edition of 3.5 edition D&D and plays much like it. And for that matter, 3rd edition D&D in general was an updated version of 2nd edition D&D that can still play a lot like that edition - it was designed to do so in many ways but with a more advanced game rule engine. I think this is one reason it's more popular in a number of regions - a lot of old timer players will find PF a more suitable, currently published game for playing old style adventures they remember from their youth. 4e, according to even a lot of its fans, really plays differently.

2) Adventures - PF has a lot of really awesome ones. From adventure paths to organized play to stand-alone short advnetures, PF has a lot and is coming out with more all the time. Adventures is one area a lot of 4e fans will harshly criticize their own product line - they just haven't been as well regarded. It has even gotten to the point that a substantial number of 4e fans will say that the designers and adventure writers didn't really understand how best to design adventures for their own game.

3) Company - Paizo is currently a standard bearer for customer service and customer engagement, and this dated way back to their custodianship of the Dragon and Dungeon magazine. They listen to feedback and try to find the best way to address it. Wizards of the Coast seemed a lot more insular in the 4e run-up and afterwards. I think the public play test and tons of polling involved in the D&D Next project indicates that they've learned some hard given lessons. The sad thing is I would have called WotC a particularly engaged and responsive company back in 1990s - much better than TSR was. But over the years, that has changed considerably.

[WNxTyr4el]

Marc Radle wrote:

WNxTyr4el wrote:

EDIT: @Fromper: I'm in the Tampa/Land O' Lakes area :D. I think I'll be going to Pathfinder quite soon. I've found on Meetup.com that a lot of people are playing PF in my area. I'm in a group on there for my area :D.

There is also a Gamers looking for Gamers forum here on Paizo.com (scoll down toward the bottom) where you could post looking for other Tampa/Land O' Lakes area Pathfinder players :)

I think I'll be doing that.

On a side note: It's REALLY good to see active forums here (though they aren't in the regular forum format I'm used to). On the WotC forums, it can take HOURS, sometimes DAYS for people to respond to a thread - if at all. So, thanks for taking the time to help me out.

For the beginner box - would you recommend every single free component I can add on?

[Ingenwulf]

4th Edition D&D was designed to be more in line with Computer RPGs whereas Pathfinder allows more complex interactions. This, for me, makes Pathfinder a game which supports greater roleplaying opportunities. It does however make it more complex and leads to differing opinions on the use and intent of many of the rules (hence if you look at these boards for a while you will see many...ehem... debates.).

I find Pathfinder harder to run, I am consistently having to cross reference rules, but more rewarding for myself and my players.

[Matt Thomason]

Ingenwulf wrote:

It does however make it more complex and leads to differing opinions on the use and intent of many of the rules (hence if you look at these boards for a while you will see many...ehem... debates.).

I find Pathfinder harder to run, I am consistently having to cross reference rules, but more rewarding for myself and my players.

Which reminds me. When you start, start with the core rulebook (or beginner's box) only, and add any others gradually, to avoid getting overwhelmed by sheer weight of rules (and indeed, weight of rulebooks if you live upstairs ;) )

People will probably start saying "you need X from book Y to play class Z!" - you really, really don't :)

All you need is what you feel comfortable playing with, and not the list of 20 addon books people will inevitably throw at you.

[WNxTyr4el]

Matt Thomason wrote:

Ingenwulf wrote:

It does however make it more complex and leads to differing opinions on the use and intent of many of the rules (hence if you look at these boards for a while you will see many...ehem... debates.).

I find Pathfinder harder to run, I am consistently having to cross reference rules, but more rewarding for myself and my players.

Which reminds me. When you start, start with the core rulebook (or beginner's box) only, and add any others gradually, to avoid getting overwhelmed by sheer weight of rules (and indeed, weight of rulebooks if you live upstairs ;) )

People will probably start saying "you need X from book Y to play class Z!" - you really, really don't :)

All you need is what you feel comfortable playing with, and not the list of 20 addon books people will inevitably throw at you.

So you can play whatever class you want, really? Is there a character creator like Wizards? Or is it all done on paper, the old fashioned way? :)

[DigitalMage]

My best advice is play whichever game you can get a good group of players for - in the end both are good games, both have issues, but without players neither can be played.

I play both PF and D&D 4e and I also still play D&D 3.5 and can enjoy them all (though my preference is 3.5 > 4e > PF mainly because I prefer the D&D game worlds of Eberron and Dark Sun with both games support without any conversion).

[Kolokotroni]

WNxTyr4el wrote:

Marc Radle wrote:

WNxTyr4el wrote:

EDIT: @Fromper: I'm in the Tampa/Land O' Lakes area :D. I think I'll be going to Pathfinder quite soon. I've found on Meetup.com that a lot of people are playing PF in my area. I'm in a group on there for my area :D.

There is also a Gamers looking for Gamers forum here on Paizo.com (scoll down toward the bottom) where you could post looking for other Tampa/Land O' Lakes area Pathfinder players :)

I think I'll be doing that.

On a side note: It's REALLY good to see active forums here (though they aren't in the regular forum format I'm used to). On the WotC forums, it can take HOURS, sometimes DAYS for people to respond to a thread - if at all. So, thanks for taking the time to help me out.

For the beginner box - would you recommend every single free component I can add on?

The paizo boards are very active, but to be fair, so were the WotC boards when 4E was in its stride, and I Imagine after next august they will be again, though in regards to DnD next not 4E.

As for addons here you can find when you scroll down a whole list of free recources to add to your game. The begginer box is a great place to start. It is among the best starter boxes I've seen for an rpg.

[Matt Thomason]

WNxTyr4el wrote:

Is there a character creator like Wizards? Or is it all done on paper, the old fashioned way? :)

Personally I prefer paper (at least, until I finish writing my own character sheet software), but those on here that prefer the computer to do all the calculating tend to use something called Hero Lab

There's a cost involved (although it's one-off and not monthly), but there's also a free trial.

[WNxTyr4el]

Kolokotroni wrote:

WNxTyr4el wrote:

Marc Radle wrote:

WNxTyr4el wrote:

EDIT: @Fromper: I'm in the Tampa/Land O' Lakes area :D. I think I'll be going to Pathfinder quite soon. I've found on Meetup.com that a lot of people are playing PF in my area. I'm in a group on there for my area :D.

There is also a Gamers looking for Gamers forum here on Paizo.com (scoll down toward the bottom) where you could post looking for other Tampa/Land O' Lakes area Pathfinder players :)

I think I'll be doing that.

On a side note: It's REALLY good to see active forums here (though they aren't in the regular forum format I'm used to). On the WotC forums, it can take HOURS, sometimes DAYS for people to respond to a thread - if at all. So, thanks for taking the time to help me out.

For the beginner box - would you recommend every single free component I can add on?

The paizo boards are very active, but to be fair, so were the WotC boards when 4E was in its stride, and I Imagine after next august they will be again, though in regards to DnD next not 4E.

As for addons here you can find when you scroll down a whole list of free recources to add to your game. The begginer box is a great place to start. It is among the best starter boxes I've seen for an rpg.

Oh I've ventured there already. I'm more wondering if all of the listed FREE add ons are worth it or if there are any I should skip.

[LoneKnave]

4e has a lot better structure and takes advantage of electronic stuff better. If you can find the updated character builder, building a character takes about 10 minutes, once you know what you want. Each piece fits pretty nicely, like if you were playing around with LEGO. Except if you play Essentials, then it's more like DUPLO. Not that that's bad, mind. If you knw what you want, you have pretty much all the tools you need to buid it. Maybe it'll need a bit of spraypainting at the end to look good. The worst thing about it is probably that WotC abandoned it, because of reasons (that are entirely unrelated to the quality of the game).

Pathfinder is all over the place in comparison (although not by that much, and mostly because of 3.5). Building a character in pathfinder is like going to a junkyard and trying to build something from whatever pieces you find. Of course, while everyone can make whatever with a bit of ducttape, there's a world of difference between the outcomes depending on the material used and the time spent looking at your pieces to determine what is trash and what isn't. Some people enjoy this process (I do, that's why I'm here), but if you don't, 4e is probably a better fit... in theory.

Thing is Paizo has a very agressive AD campaign and squeezes out every bit of advantage the SRD gives, which means that PF pretty much took 3.5s place as the game everyone plays.

Make your choice. For playing, I play in both a PF and a 4e group, and right now I enjoy 4e better, but for mechanics tweaking and stuff like that, you can have a lot of fun just going to a random feat/spell/archetype/item in PF and try to build something around that. You'll probably also find more games for it, if you are looking for a game.

EDIT: also, this thread is civil as hell. I'm impressed.

[WNxTyr4el]

LoneKnave wrote:

4e has a lot better structure and takes advantage of electronic stuff better. If you can find the updated character builder, building a character takes about 10 minutes, once you know what you want. Each piece fits pretty nicely, like if you were playing around with LEGO. Except if you play Essentials, then it's more like DUPLO. Not that that's bad, mind. If you knw what you want, you have pretty much all the tools you need to buid it. Maybe it'll need a bit of spraypainting at the end to look good. The worst thing about it is probably that WotC abandoned it, because of reasons (that are entirely unrelated to the quality of the game).

Pathfinder is all over the place in comparison (although not by that much, and mostly because of 3.5). Building a character in pathfinder is like going to a junkyard and trying to build something from whatever pieces you find. Of course, while everyone can make whatever with a bit of ducttape, there's a world of difference between the outcomes depending on the material used and the time spent looking at your pieces to determine what is trash and what isn't. Some people enjoy this process (I do, that's why I'm here), but if you don't, 4e is probably a better fit... in theory.

Thing is Paizo has a very agressive AD campaign and squeezes out every bit of advantage the SRD gives, which means that PF pretty much took 3.5s place as the game everyone plays.

Make your choice. For playing, I play in both a PF and a 4e group, and right now I enjoy 4e better, but for mechanics tweaking and stuff like that, you can have a lot of fun just going to a random feat/spell/archetype/item in PF and try to build something around that. You'll probably also find more games for it, if you are looking for a game.

EDIT: also, this thread is civil as hell. I'm impressed.

Lol you make very good analogies I think. I definitely think I'll try the beginner box once I get the $30 for it. And yes, this thread is quite civil. I intended it to be lol.

[Matt Thomason]

LoneKnave wrote:

EDIT: also, this thread is civil as hell. I'm impressed.

1h 40m since the OP posted - give it time ;)

[Liz Courts]

WNxTyr4el wrote:

I definitely think I'll try the beginner box once I get the $30 for it.

We just released a second printing of the Beginner Box, so it's a good time to grab it! :)

[Chemlak]

My 2 cp.

Pathfinder can clearly trace it's roots back through earlier editions of the game. It is possible to take an original D&D character, and convert him through the editions up to 3.5, and into Pathfinder, with relatively little change or loss of abilities that helped define the character. From my perspective, 4E was too much of a departure from previous editions such that it became effectively impossible to convert a 3.X character into it without some significant departures in scope and capabilities.

On the pro-4E side, I firmly consider it to be a truly excellent skirmish miniatures game, with enough roleplay elements to allow for player investment in a particular character. But with the primary focus being on combat capabilities, at the expense of social and background detail, it fell short of my desires for a D&D successor.

I consider Pathfinder to be both a superior representation of a fantasy reality, and a closer descendent of D&D, which is why it currently holds my favour. That the adventures and background detail Paizo have invested in are truly excellent is the icing on the cake.

[WNxTyr4el]

Liz Courts wrote:

WNxTyr4el wrote:

I definitely think I'll try the beginner box once I get the $30 for it.

We just released a second printing of the Beginner Box, so it's a good time to grab it! :)

Is that the one available on the Pathfinder Beginner Box page? I assume the one that is $34.99 is the one I'm looking for? There doesn't seem to be a very detailed description of the non-mint version, other than that it's non-mint and could be dinged up a bit. How badly are they usually dinged up though? That may influence my decision on which version to get. ...though I usually like new and shiny things :D

[Matt Thomason]

Liz Courts wrote:

WNxTyr4el wrote:

I definitely think I'll try the beginner box once I get the $30 for it.

We just released a second printing of the Beginner Box, so it's a good time to grab it! :)

Yikes, Liz! I just saw your name against this thread and my first thought was "OHGOD what has someone said?!??!? Why can't we go for just one page talking civilly to each other!"

<wipes brow>

Whew, false alarm :)

[Liz Courts]

WNxTyr4el wrote:

Liz Courts wrote:

WNxTyr4el wrote:

I definitely think I'll try the beginner box once I get the $30 for it.

We just released a second printing of the Beginner Box, so it's a good time to grab it! :)

Is that the one available on the Pathfinder Beginner Box page? I assume the one that is $34.99 is the one I'm looking for? There doesn't seem to be a very detailed description of the non-mint version, other than that it's non-mint and could be dinged up a bit. How badly are they usually dinged up though? That may influence my decision on which version to get. ...though I usually like new and shiny things :D

That is the one (there's a little red ribbon in the corner that will indicate if it's the newest version). Our non-mint materials are usually in quite good condition, but there's usually some cosmetic damage (corners dinged up, scuffs, scratches, etc.).

[Sloanzilla]

I WANT to derail this thread into 4.0 bashing, but you guys have already said not to do that :(, so I won't

[WNxTyr4el]

Liz Courts wrote:

WNxTyr4el wrote:

Liz Courts wrote:

WNxTyr4el wrote:

I definitely think I'll try the beginner box once I get the $30 for it.

We just released a second printing of the Beginner Box, so it's a good time to grab it! :)

Is that the one available on the Pathfinder Beginner Box page? I assume the one that is $34.99 is the one I'm looking for? There doesn't seem to be a very detailed description of the non-mint version, other than that it's non-mint and could be dinged up a bit. How badly are they usually dinged up though? That may influence my decision on which version to get. ...though I usually like new and shiny things :D

That is the one (there's a little red ribbon in the corner that will indicate if it's the newest version). Our non-mint materials are usually in quite good condition, but there's usually some cosmetic damage (corners dinged up, scuffs, scratches, etc.).

Thank you very much for the info! I'll look into it most definitely!

Sloanzilla wrote:

I WANT to derail this thread into 4.0 bashing, but you guys have already said not to do that :(, so I won't

Yes, please don't lol.

[Matt Thomason]

Sloanzilla wrote:

I WANT to derail this thread into 4.0 bashing, but you guys have already said not to do that :(, so I won't

Sometimes I feel there should be a place where people can go to get all that out of their system, so they can arrive at the Paizo boards all content and happy and balanced :) The forum equivalent to a big ol' punchbag, or something.

[Liz Courts]

Sloanzilla wrote:

I WANT to derail this thread into 4.0 bashing, but you guys have already said not to do that :(, so I won't

Please don't do it in this thread, or on these boards. At all.

[WNxTyr4el]

Getting back on track - can anyone speak to the amount of powers each class gets? I know and have read you can multi class in PF and so you get to dabble in other classes and obtain their powers so I suppose the list for one character is pretty much endless, but what about balance of spells and whatnot? Can anyone speak to those two things:

1. Number of powers/spells
2. Balance of them

And I suppose one last thing: In D&D there are so many combinations for classes in terms of power selection, feat selection, etc. and where you could still be useful. Is it like that in PF?

Anddd again, just friendly conversation and inquiry here.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Well, this thread has developed much more positively than it could have, so thanks to everyone for avoiding the temptation to edition bash.

WNxTyr4el, (man, you gotta get a name people can type and remember dude) keep in mind that most of the reviews of the two systems were done by people with a bias of their own.

Both game systems are fun to play. Both can accommodate highly involved and rewarding role play. Both can accommodate highly detailed and convoluted tactics. They are both tabletop RPGs with all the fundamental aspects that are common to the genre. They are not at opposite extremes of the genre, both are pretty near the middle. I find 4e to be slightly better at allowing tactical battle simulations to flow, and I find PF to be slightly better at creating flavor for the characters to role play.

I prefer Pathfinder, but that doesn't mean 4e isn't worth a look.

[WNxTyr4el]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Well, this thread has developed much more positively than it could have, so thanks to everyone for avoiding the temptation to edition bash.

WNxTyr4el, (man, you gotta get a name people can type and remember dude) keep in mind that most of the reviews of the two systems were done by people with a bias of their own.

Both game systems are fun to play. Both can accommodate highly involved and rewarding role play. Both can accommodate highly detailed and convoluted tactics. They are both tabletop RPGs with all the fundamental aspects that are common to the genre. They are not at opposite extremes of the genre, both are pretty near the middle. I find 4e to be slightly better at allowing tactical battle simulations to flow, and I find PF to be slightly better at creating flavor for the characters to role play.

I prefer Pathfinder, but that doesn't mean 4e isn't worth a look.

I totally understand. I only meant for a comparison of the good and bad things of both. I know D&D 4e has its followers and I know PF has its followers. I really wanted to obtain information to make a better decision in which one I deem has better pluses. I really think at this point it's going to be PF. It's just more popular around my area and it seems to really be growing quite fast. Not only that but it's supported out the wazoo by its developers which is amazing.

[Stuffy Grammarian]

Kolokotroni wrote:

Pathfinder has literally exploded in popularity in the last years.

"Exploded in popularity" is a metaphor, and hence figurative. It therefore cannot, by definition, also be "literal."

[Sebastian]

Do you have a local gaming store? They might have demos or other scheduled games where you can see what Pathfinder is like.

Honestly, they're both pretty similar if you're new to the whole tabletop rpg scene. 4e has a better suite of digital tools, which can be very helpful in preparing adventures or making characters (but given that a new version of D&D is coming out, it's not clear how long those will be provided and they aren't free). If you want to DM from scratch, 4e is probably going to be easier to use and pick up. If you're looking to run a pre-made adventure, the Paizo adventure paths are amazing, and can get you playing right away with very little prep.

Also, be wary of the edition warriors, which lurk here and in real life. If someone is telling you that one game or the other ruined life, the universe, and everything, your better off just avoiding that person than trying to reason with them.

Ultimately, the biggest selling point for Pathfinder is probably the network effect it brings - 4e has been on the decline and Pathfinder is still growing, so it's usually easier to find players for the later than for the former.

[Matt Thomason]

Stuffy Grammarian wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

Pathfinder has literally exploded in popularity in the last years.

"Exploded in popularity" is a metaphor, and hence figurative. It therefore cannot, by definition, also be "literal."

Whew. I was about to check for threads about rulebooks taking out peoples houses, and was looking up the number for the bomb disposal squad.

[WNxTyr4el]

Sebastian wrote:

Do you have a local gaming store? They might have demos or other scheduled games where you can see what Pathfinder is like.

Honestly, they're both pretty similar if you're new to the whole tabletop rpg scene. 4e has a better suite of digital tools, which can be very helpful in preparing adventures or making characters (but given that a new version of D&D is coming out, it's not clear how long those will be provided and they aren't free). If you want to DM from scratch, 4e is probably going to be easier to use and pick up. If you're looking to run a pre-made adventure, the Paizo adventure paths are amazing, and can get you playing right away with very little prep.

Also, be wary of the edition warriors, which lurk here and in real life. If someone is telling you that one game or the other ruined life, the universe, and everything, your better off just avoiding that person than trying to reason with them.

Ultimately, the biggest selling point for Pathfinder is probably the network effect it brings - 4e has been on the decline and Pathfinder is still growing, so it's usually easier to find players for the later than for the former.

Yes, I do have a few. One in particular that's closer. I'll have to check them and see if they playtest and have demos of Pathfinder on certain days. I may just bite teh bullet and buy the beginner box blindly. Just gotta' get the money for it.

[voska66]

I think the the reason you find fewer and fewer people playing 4E, is how to put it, kind of once you've played it the next game feels exactly the same. So this meant you need new books constantly. PF is similar except you get more mileage out the books before you hit that same point. Not saying that point prevents play it just means you aren't spending as much buying books with Paizo and you are 4E D&D. At least that's my experience. As well with 5E you probably have people holding off in starting a game of 4E.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Stuffy Grammarian wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

Pathfinder has literally exploded in popularity in the last years.

"Exploded in popularity" is a metaphor, and hence figurative. It therefore cannot, by definition, also be "literal."

Stuffy, I am totally with you here, misuse of "literally" has always been right up there with "irregardless" in my most irritating grammar errors.

But if you are truly a stuffy grammarian, you should know that BOTH of those are now completely acceptable according to the latest dictionaries and grammar guides. "Literally" now literally means "figuratively" in the dictionary, and "irregardless" now means "regardless".

You just can't stop "progress."

[Sloanzilla]

The introduction of 4.0 WOULD actually be an interesting topic for a paper about product marketing.

You have a niche hobby (gaming) and you want to expand that niche hobby by simplifying and introducing elements that might appeal to people associated with a broader (but associated) niche hobby (video gaming).

I'd love to sometime read a clinical, objective analysis of 4.0 related to balancing efforts to preserve your core customers while reaching out to new customers, and what variables are involved. (For example, you could argue that gaming customers are comparatively loyal/stubborn about certain elements).

[Matt Thomason]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

You just can't stop "progress."

Oh, I dunno. At least, there's nothing to say we have to progress with it.

I wiped Google Chrome off my computer when their UI "progressed".
I reinstalled a start menu onto Windows when that "progressed".
I switched to Pathfinder when 3.5e "progressed".
Likewise I'll happily put a line through any attempts to redefine the use of the word "literally" in any new dictionaries I buy ;)

[WNxTyr4el]

Matt Thomason wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

You just can't stop "progress."

Oh, I dunno. At least, there's nothing to say we have to progress with it.

I wiped Google Chrome off my computer when their UI "progressed".
I reinstalled a start menu onto Windows when that "progressed".
I switched to Pathfinder when 3.5e "progressed".
Likewise I'll happily put a line through any attempts to redefine the use of the word "literally" in any new dictionaries I buy ;)

Clever, clever lol. But can anyone speak to my question about spells and powers and balancing a few posts up? I won't paste it again though just to not repeat the same post lol.

[Sebastian]

WNxTyr4el wrote:

Getting back on track - can anyone speak to the amount of powers each class gets? I know and have read you can multi class in PF and so you get to dabble in other classes and obtain their powers so I suppose the list for one character is pretty much endless, but what about balance of spells and whatnot? Can anyone speak to those two things:

1. Number of powers/spells
2. Balance of them

And I suppose one last thing: In D&D there are so many combinations for classes in terms of power selection, feat selection, etc. and where you could still be useful. Is it like that in PF?

Anddd again, just friendly conversation and inquiry here.

Every game has balance issues, and I don't think either game is better in that regards. However, 4e is designed to decrease the differences between the classes. For example, a lot of 4e's healing/support powers also tend to do damage to an opponent, whereas they don't in Pathfinder. Similarly, 4e's powers are designed to be resolved easily and quickly - Pathfinder powers (particularly spells) require additional interpretation. This can slow down play, but a lot of people enjoy the more complex Pathfinder flavor.

Also, 4e classes all tend to have similar powers, whereas Pathfinder classes vary dramatically (a wizard or cleric is much more complex than a fighter or barbarian). Both games have a wide variety of powers, and I don't think one has significantly more than the other. There is a ton of room to customize your character in Pathfinder, but unlike 4e, it's a bit easier to create a character that's not very good. It's not a huge problem, but you have to be a little more thoughtful in Pathfinder when choosing your abilities (and particularly when multi-classing, which is almost always a terrible decision if you are playing a full spellcaster in Pathfinder).

[Adamantine Dragon]

Sloanzilla, the repeated assertion that 4e was an attempt to introduce video game techniques into tabletop gaming is merely that, an assertion. I believe that many WotC designers have repeatedly claimed that was never a design goal. Do you have any evidence from the designers that there was a deliberate and coordinated attempt to model video game aspects in the 4e design?

I see this assertion all the time. It is probably widely believed. But I have no indication I can rely on that it is actually true.

[WNxTyr4el]

Sebastian wrote:

WNxTyr4el wrote:

Getting back on track - can anyone speak to the amount of powers each class gets? I know and have read you can multi class in PF and so you get to dabble in other classes and obtain their powers so I suppose the list for one character is pretty much endless, but what about balance of spells and whatnot? Can anyone speak to those two things:

1. Number of powers/spells
2. Balance of them

And I suppose one last thing: In D&D there are so many combinations for classes in terms of power selection, feat selection, etc. and where you could still be useful. Is it like that in PF?

Anddd again, just friendly conversation and inquiry here.

Every game has balance issues, and I don't think either game is better in that regards. However, 4e is designed to decrease the differences between the classes. For example, a lot of 4e's healing/support powers also tend to do damage to an opponent, whereas they don't in Pathfinder. Similarly, 4e's powers are designed to be resolved easily and quickly - Pathfinder powers (particularly spells) require additional interpretation. This can slow down play, but a lot of people enjoy the more complex Pathfinder flavor.

Also, 4e classes all tend to have similar powers, whereas Pathfinder classes vary dramatically (a wizard or cleric is much more complex than a fighter or barbarian). Both games have a wide variety of powers, and I don't think one has significantly more than the other. There is a ton of room to customize your character in Pathfinder, but unlike 4e, it's a bit easier to create a character that's not very good. It's not a huge problem, but you have to be a little more thoughtful in Pathfinder when choosing your abilities (and particularly when multi-classing, which is almost always a terrible decision if you are playing a full spellcaster in Pathfinder).

So spell casters are pretty much discouraged from multi classing? That's a shame. I love spell casters and would love to multi class one :P

[Kirth Gersen]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

But if you are truly a stuffy grammarian, you should know that BOTH of those are now completely acceptable according to the latest dictionaries and grammar guides.

Dear God, I googled it, got Merriam-Webster as the #1 hit, and read,

Merriam-Webster Online wrote:

1: in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>

2: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>
Usage Discussion of LITERALLY
Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.

I will now procede to douse myself in gasoline and literally set myself on fire. Or else cast about for another word that actually means what "literal" used to mean.

For me, the word was invaluable. Given my tendency to exaggerate for humorous effect, "literal" used to be a sure way of letting the audience know that, despite my usual attempts at jocularity, at the moment I was being dead serious and totally accurate. I can no longer do that, evidently, without wasting several sentences.

Edit: Then again, M-W is also trying to tell me that "literally" rhymes with "bitterly," so its usefulness as a source is somewhat questionable.

Thankfully, the #2 Google search site -- that other paragon of humorous exaggeration, The Oatmeal -- sees eye to eye with me on this.